Since the launch of the Government’s first registration tax concession arrangement under the “One-for-One Replacement” Scheme, which promotes the transition from petrol vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs), the number of registered EVs in Hong Kong has reached around 17% of all registered private cars (PCs) as of November 2024.
Additionally, the percentage of electric PCs among newly registered PCs has soared to around 70%. With technological advancements, the energy efficiency and driving range of EVs continue to be improved. However, the latest report by International Consumer Research & Testing (ICRT) revealed that different EV models within the same car category can vary by up to 25% in average energy consumption due to factors such as the design, materials, and weight of the vehicle. This discrepancy can result in more than double the difference in the projected driving range between these models. The test also revealed that a higher battery capacity does not necessarily correlate with a longer driving range. Consumers should also be aware that driving habits can affect the actual driving range. For example, frequent and rapid acceleration may increase energy consumption and reduce the actual driving range. As the popularity of EVs grows, there is an increasing demand for charging services, oftentimes leading to consumer complaints received by the Consumer Council.
Issues reported include unstable power supply at charging stations, insufficient charging spots, and disputes over fees. The Council reminds traders to regularly inspect their charging facilities to ensure they deliver the promised charging capacity. They should also improve coordination with carpark management companies to enhance the management of charging spots to meet consumers’ expectations.
As for consumers, they are advised to familiarise themselves with the details of charging station fees, including charging costs and idle parking fees, and compare different plans to choose the best service for their needs.
In collaboration with a European automotive association, ICRT conducted tests on 19 EV models reportedly manufactured in Europe, the US, the Mainland, and other Asian regions. The models were priced between $199,000 and $1,699,900, with claimed maximum power outputs ranging from 118 to 544 horsepower (PS). The models included 1 “city car”, 8 “small family cars”, 7 “large family cars”, 1 “executive car”, and 2 highest-priced “luxury cars”. It is important to note that even for the same model, the specifications of vehicles tested in Europe may not be identical to those available in Hong Kong. Consequently, the test results should be considered for reference purposes only. Consumers are encouraged to verify the specifications of the Hong Kong version with dealers and to personally test drive the vehicles before making a purchase.
Over 300km Difference in Driving Range and up to 25% Variance in Energy Consumption
The energy efficiency of EVs is influenced by various factors such as driving habits, battery maintenance, and ambient temperature, all of which can affect energy consumption. The tests were conducted in a laboratory with the car’s air conditioning system operating, measuring the average energy consumption of the models per 100km. The 19 tested models showed an average energy consumption from 17.0 to 22.0kWh. Even EVs within the same car category could exhibit significant variations in energy efficiency.
For instance, among the 7 “large family cars” tested, the average energy consumption ranged from 17.0 to 21.3kWh, representing a difference of up to 25%; while among the 8 “small family cars” tested, energy consumption levels ranged from 18.3 to 20.6 kWh, showing a difference of over 12%. The energy consumption level of EVs may not directly correspond with their horsepower. For example, 2 models with comparable energy consumption (21.2 and 21.3kWh) claimed a maximum power output of 514 and 218 PS respectively, a difference of over 1.3 times. Similarly, 2 models claiming the same maximum power output of 204 PS exhibited a respective average energy consumption level of 17.0 and 20.6kWh, a difference of about 21%.
Based on the measured average energy consumption, the estimated driving range of the 19 EV models ranged from 252 to 570km. Results revealed that the range is not always directly proportional to the battery capacity. For instance, the model with the highest stated battery capacity of 105.7kWh had an estimated range of 546km, ranking third among all models, while the model ranking second with an estimated range of 559km had a lower claimed battery capacity of 90.6kWh. Two other models with the same claimed battery capacity of 71.4kWh had ranges of 353 and 412km respectively, showing a difference of nearly 60km.
Time Required to Charge to 80% Varied by up to 31 Minutes
Discovering that your battery is low right before you need to drive can disrupt plans. The test compared the time required to charge the various EV models from 10% to 80% using fast chargers. The results varied considerably, with charging times ranging from 17 to 48 minutes. It was also revealed that the charging time does not necessarily correlate with battery capacity. For example, the EV with the longest charging time of 48 minutes had a claimed battery capacity of 63.1kWh, while another EV with a similar battery capacity of 63kWh took only 32 minutes to charge.
Currently, there are over 9,100 public EV charging facilities across Hong Kong, and many private housing estates have also installed charging stations for their residents. However, the Council frequently receives complaints about charging services, ranging from insufficient charging and occupied charging spots to unclear fee instructions. Service providers are urged to improve this service promptly.
Case 1: Charging Stopped in the Middle of the Night Leading to Insufficient Power
The complainant often charged his EV overnight at the charging stations in the parking lot of his residential estate, and used Company A’s 12-hour 50kWh plan, which cost around $125 per session. Company A stated that their charging station could deliver up to 6kW per hour, meaning it should take roughly 8 hours to reach 50kWh. However, the complainant noticed that the charging station would unexpectedly stop charging in the middle of the night. For example, one session lasted 667 minutes but only charged 44kWh, while another session lasted 719 minutes but only charged 41.1kWh. Each time, he discovered the issue in the morning through the app and had to manually restart the charging. As Company A’s fees were based on the charging duration and the amount of kW delivered, the complainant felt that he suffered not only financial losses but also significant inconvenience. Consequently, he filed a complaint with the Council to seek a refund of the overcharges resulting from the insufficient charging.
In its response to the Council, Company A explained that the issue stemmed from limitations in the charging facilities, which triggered the protective mechanism to stop charging during power drops. The company apologised for the inconvenience caused and agreed to refund the overcharged amount to the complainant. To provide more stable charging services, it had also performed the upgrades of both the system and its facility. The complainant accepted the refund arrangement, and the issue was resolved.
Case 2: Promised 1:1 User-to-Charging Spot Ratio, but Spots Occupied by Hourly Rental Vehicles
Company B partnered with a parking lot to offer its monthly rental users a lite monthly EV charging plan. The advertisement promised a 1:1 ratio of charging spots to users, with a monthly fee of $680 for a 36-month contract. However, after signing up for the plan, the complainant found that there were no available charging spots on 2 occasions within the first 2 months. Attempts to seek immediate assistance from the parking lot staff were unsuccessful, and subsequent efforts to contact Company B’s customer service were also unfruitful. The complainant suspected that Company B had oversold the plan and that the advertised 1:1 ratio was not being met. He filed a complaint with the Council, seeking a partial refund for the unprovided charging services.
Company B explained that they had installed chargers in 21 parking spaces for the 21 monthly rental users who had subscribed to the plan, fulfilling its promise of 1:1 ratio. After a further follow-up with the carpark management, Company B discovered that the newly installed chargers lacked clear signage, which led to some hourly rental vehicles parking in the charging spots by mistake. The management company had since posted notices at each charging spot and arranged for staff to enhance monitoring and follow-up. Upon receiving this response, the complainant did not request any further action from the Council.
Case 3: Idle Fee Nearly 10 Times the Charging Fee for Not Leaving Immediately After Charging
The complainant drove to Company C’s medium charging station in a shopping mall to charge her EV under their brand. She purchased 1 hour of charging service and began charging at 2:17pm, leaving at 3:57pm. Upon checking the app later, however, she discovered a charge of $166.2, with $16.2 for the 1-hour charging fee, while the remaining $150 was the capped idle fee as her EV was recorded to be idle for 40 minutes and an idle fee of $5 per minute was incurred. The complainant argued that there were no notices about the idle fee at the charging station, and that Company C’s brand discount should have been applied as she had stated that her EV was of Brand C when entering her information in the app. According to the fee schedule, the 1-hour charging fee after discount should be $14.6 instead of the regular member price of $16.2. Believing this to be a case of excessive fee-charging and having failed to obtain a refund of the overcharges from Company C, the complainant sought assistance from the Council.
Company C clarified that the charging and idle fee arrangements were listed in the app, and that customers were required to verify by entering a specific invitation code before they could enjoy the brand discount. Displeased with this explanation, the complainant reiterated that the fee schedule posted at the charging station did not mention any idle fees, and expressed dissatisfaction with the high charges. The Council conciliated again, urging Company C to address the discrepancies between the app information and the on-site fee schedule. Despite this, Company C declined to issue a refund. The Council hence recommended the complainant to consider seeking further legal advice.
To support the rapid growth of the EV market, many areas in Hong Kong are expanding their charging infrastructure. According to the Environment and Ecology Bureau’s “Green Transformation Roadmap of Public Buses and Taxis”, the goal is to install 3,000 fast chargers by 2030. The Council recommends charging service providers to ensure high service quality and transparency in their pricing terms and increase their promotional efforts to support the healthy development of the industry. Consumers should also keep the following points in mind when using public charging stations:
- Besides the location and charging speed of the station, also consider the pricing plans and see if they are time- or kWh-based, or if there are monthly packages that include a specified power allowance. Try to understand the terms, conditions and pricing details of these plans in advance and keep all transaction records;
- Many public charging stations impose idle or overtime fees to prevent parking spaces from being occupied for extended periods. Therefore, it is advisable to accurately calculate the charging completion time and vacate the spot promptly to make it available for other users;
- Regularly check the pricing models and fees of the frequently visited charging stations to stay informed of any changes and avoid potential disputes.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/579-cars / https://ccchoice.org/579-ev-charging-complaints
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.